pequaide wrote:I would store the excess energy as gravitational potential energy. It is simple to calculate and very efficient. Some of this gravitational potential energy could be used to reclaim the original motion.
That would make the setup quite complex. The only way I can think of is releasing the small weights towards a ramp so they can fly up. And then you have to build a quite tall measuring setup. This all just to measure energy? Why not have a photo gate that measures speed, combined with the mass of the yellow weights you can measure kinetic energy. It's best to make the gray parts much lighter than the yellow weights.
This setup allows you to upgrade it to a perpetual motion system like Fletcher points out.
You might be able to do a simple roll-up-a-ramp test broli [gain gravitational Pe] if you let the bottom yellow mass loose after 6 o'cl - it would have to have enough velocity [aka Ke] to get back up to at least just above 9 o'cl then traverse across to relatch near the top-side of the hub [axle] when the grey arms are stopped in vertical alignment [12-6 o'cl] - that way one yellow mass [the top one at 12 o'cl] would under the pull of gravity seek the axle & also pull up the bottom lever that doesn't have the weight attached until they meet up again - just an idea to consider.
EDIT: If there were a short timing delay before the yellow mass reattached [stop & go] then you could let it run downhill the final short distance & let its Ke provide the impetus to get the whole setup under rotation again ?!
Your idea of simply measuring velocity & Ke is as good a indicator as any of any surplus energy to regain any lost height etc, if you use a release & catch mechanism - IMO.
Oke here it is the glorious 3d rendition. I didn't have time to make a smooth animation but the gif should be clear. This should be a decent visual aid for any build. Notice that this design is very dynamic. One can increase or decrease the weights as desired, or make the arm of the rod longer or shorter to fine tune the setup so momentum can be transferred completely.
I have to add that a simple latching mechanism is not added which I forgot. What this does is drag the light setup along with the heavy setup when the heavy setup is rotated. When the light setup does its momentum transfer thing and rotates on its own, it kicks this latch down when it makes half a turn, so it can keep on rotating. This is a very simple thing to add.
This is by far not the best setup there is so that's why I encourage constructive suggestions or helpful tips to build this thing. Like which material parts to choose or find.
So people of this forum. Is this not enough yet to interest you? Or is chasing non disclosure agreements and empty promises more exciting? We have the theory and we have the design we only need the ...
Attachments
Last edited by broli on Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Establishing how much input energy to get it rotating might be more difficult ? - if the device were table top mounted then you could have a central pulley & hanging weight arrangement that lowered a certain distance whilst giving the whole device momentum ?
Last edited by Fletcher on Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fletcher if you want to be highly scientifically about the input energy it's best to determine the moment of inertia of the system through some controlled experiments. That including the initial angular velocity tells you the energy of the system. For the final output energy you can be generous by only considering the masses+speed and ignoring the energy in the frame.
That's where it gets interesting broli - you are delving right into jim_mich's area of expertise because he also wants to harness an apparent speed differential after radius shifting, also from inertia - this practical setup you propose will test the conservation laws & give you an answer about whether energy can be created [& used] or whether it changes state from position to motion & back again.
I second broli's remarks - where are the builders [are there any builders willing ?] who would build this simple device, & if not why not ? Surely the chance to prove something one way or another is worth a little time & thought - I'm not going to build because I don't think I would be viewed as impartial, so some others input would be appreciated, by me anyway.
There are builders here, but speaking for myself I see nothing to get excited about building. Either I am missing something that makes this design gather attention or its a complimentary animation.
What is supposed to make this compilation of swinging weights and levers self-sustaining?
Ralph - I tend to agree with you. I know my opinion is valueless around here, but FWIW I still think most people here are missing Pequaides whole concept. Maybe it's just me - but I genuinely believe the basic Bessler principle is right here to be grasped, but for whatever ever perverse reasons, it is being twisted into non-runner status.
For example:
"Yes, you are correct. Gravity is too troublesome to deal with, why use it if the device could work anywhere in space without it."
Coupled with this GIF which does not relate to a vertical gravity field input, it seems to me that this idea is SO CLOSE but so far away.
The energy input is gravity, damnit! Pequaid/Atwood if you will.
I honestly think Jim Mitch's concept of non-gravity powered exploitation of Velocity Squared based maths is a non-runner. Perpetual Squat. Whether it is valid or not should be discussed in another thread, and not allow this thread to be tainted with a misleading principle.
IMO, with some basic tweaks to this GIF, you will have true gravity powered impulse motor. But not if you deny gravity input and have some fanciful notion based on flawed maths.
Is this perversion of ideas wilful? Or is the conventional circular-logic so deeply engrained nobody can escape it?
Greendoor I wanted to be polite but enough is enough. You are the very source of perversion and ignorance.
There have been posters here who didn't want this to progress and you rightfully pointed them out but to now point your gun at me is absolutely insulting. The moment I understood Pequaide's concept I did nothing more than help this progress faster and try to make the concept clearer for more people. I have spent DAYS trying to help.
I was always interested in his ideas from the very start but I couldn't grasp them until a certain post in this thread. Since then I tried to help Pequaide.
You on the other hand did little for the concept to progress besides jumping from one person to another blaming them on derailing the concept.
Do you even understand the latest concept? It's based on the EXACT idea Pequaide started this thread with. The sphere and cylinder concept. Pequaide never used gravity for the momentum transfer, he only used it to measure energy input. All his experiments took place in horizontal air or on a frictional plane.
My proposed design takes this all up a notch by scaling the concept up so higher NET energy gains can be achieved.
Maybe you should go get your facts straight and think what your uncontrolled paranoid behavior is really doing.
It is a two step process. You gain motion with the Atwood’s machine. And you can measure output as gravitational potential energy (joules). But the momentum transfer avoids the affect of gravity by working in a horizontal plane.
